Skip to content
Culture · Asia Pacific

Meerut court sentences Ravita and Amardeep to death for Amit Kashyap’s murder

A Meerut court sentenced Ravita and Amardeep to death after convicting them of Amit Kashyap’s murder. The prosecution presented 12 witnesses, and the court described the case as “rarest of rare.”

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 5 outlets' reporting · Full text read from 3 of 5 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 2 entries
5 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Center OnlyL 0 · C 5 · R 0

What happened

Key facts

  • The court found that Ravita and Amardeep killed Amit Kashyap by strangulation and used a snake to make his death appear to be a snakebite (per freepressjournal.in, India Today, The Times of India).
  • Amit Kashyap’s body was found with a live snake beside or beneath it (per freepressjournal.in, India Today, The Times of India).
  • Government counsel Farzana Masood said the court ordered that Ravita’s children’s education and other needs be taken care of (per The Times of India).
  • The court was the Additional District Judge-12 court, and Jaiveer Singh Nagar pronounced the sentence (per India Today, freepressjournal.in).

The brief

A Meerut court sentenced Ravita and Amardeep to death for Amit Kashyap’s murder, after finding that they strangled him and used a snake to make the killing appear to be a snakebite. The ruling followed the court’s conviction of the pair; India Today reported that the court called the case “rarest of rare.”

The Additional District Judge-12 court delivered the sentence, with Jaiveer Singh Nagar presiding, according to India Today and The Times of India. Free Press Journal reported that the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. India Today described the prosecution’s witness count as over a dozen. Those accounts differ in precision, rather than establishing two clearly incompatible totals. The court’s ruling addressed the killing and the staging of the scene. The sources describe Amit’s body as having been found with a live snake beside or beneath it, and say the snake was used to make the death appear to be a snakebite. Free Press Journal says investigators found evidence of strangulation. The Times of India reports that police said the post-mortem examination established strangulation as the cause of death and found injuries to Kashyap’s neck and nose. The accounts also provide different details about the investigation. Free Press Journal reported that police said Amardeep obtained the snake from a snake charmer named Krishna for Rs 1,000, saying it was for a religious programme. The outlet said police filed a chargesheet on June 26, 2025. India Today reported that investigators traced more than 500 calls between Ravita and Amardeep through a number he used to contact her. It also said Ravita spoke with Amardeep more than 70 times over four days after Kashyap’s death, according to the prosecution. The reporting identifies the conviction and sentence as the court’s actions, not merely allegations by police or prosecutors. India Today says the court convicted Ravita and Amardeep of murder and criminal conspiracy on October 7; Free Press Journal says the convictions included murder and destruction of evidence. These accounts describe different additional charges or findings, so the precise set of convictions is not consistent across them. The Times of India reported that government counsel Farzana Masood said the court ordered that Ravita’s children’s education and other needs be provided for. The same outlet said the two defendants had been in jail for 17 months and attended the sentencing by video conference. Free Press Journal reported that Kashyap’s mother, Munesh Devi, said justice had finally been delivered and that she had sought the death penalty. The immediate consequence is the death sentence, following the convictions and the court’s assessment of the case. The reports do not state what further legal steps Ravita or Amardeep will take. The court’s sentencing, the accounts of the staged snakebite scene, and the provisions described for Ravita’s children are the principal reported outcomes of the case.

Why it matters

  • Amit Kashyap was killed by strangulation, and the use of a live snake was intended to make the death appear to be a snakebite, according to the court’s reported findings.
  • The sentence is the most severe concrete consequence reported for Ravita and Amardeep; the court also characterized the case as “rarest of rare.”
  • Ravita’s children have a specific stake in the ruling: government counsel Farzana Masood said the court ordered their education and other needs to be taken care of.
  • Kashyap’s mother, Munesh Devi, said the verdict delivered justice and reported that she had sought the death penalty.

What to watch next

  • Whether Ravita or Amardeep pursue further legal action against the death sentence; the reports do not describe any next step.
  • Whether the order concerning Ravita’s children’s education and other needs is carried out.
  • Whether further court proceedings clarify the convictions described differently by the outlets: murder and destruction of evidence, or murder and criminal conspiracy.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
5 source articles · 5 unique outlets
Coverage mix: Center Only· 5 Center
Where the outlets are based: Asia 100%
Coverage mix
Center Only
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
5 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
5 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (5 of 5 rated sources); comparatively few Left or Right-rated outlets have published on the event.
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (5 of 5 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

4 framing differences · 3 uncorroborated claims · 1 information gap
Sources broadly agree on the core facts but frame the story differently.Compared across 3 reports whose full text Updat3 used; 2 other outlets were checked by headline only.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources agree on the facts but emphasise different angles, actors or consequences.
  • Free Press Journal emphasizes the 12 prosecution witnesses and Munesh Devi’s reaction; India Today emphasizes the “rarest of rare” characterization and phone-call evidence.
  • The Times of India highlights the post-mortem findings and the reported provision for Ravita’s children.
  • Free Press Journal attributes the snake procurement account and chargesheet details to police; India Today attributes the call figures to investigators and the prosecution.
  • The descriptions of the additional convictions differ: Free Press Journal says the court convicted the pair of destruction of evidence, while India Today says the convictions included criminal conspiracy.
Updat3: The underlying facts agree; only the emphasis differs.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • India Today reports that the court called the case “rarest of rare.”
  • Munesh Devi said justice had finally been delivered, according to Free Press Journal.
  • Government counsel Farzana Masood said the court ordered support for Ravita’s children’s education and other needs, according to The Times of India.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • The sources do not report whether Ravita or Amardeep have appealed or plan to appeal the death sentence.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. In *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* on May 9, 1980, the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment but limited it to the “rarest of rare” cases.
    Background · from our historical context
  2. In *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab* on July 20, 1983, the Court elaborated factors for applying that standard.
    Background · from our historical context

How we got here

Before the Meerut court proceedings, investigators examined Amit Kashyap’s death as a suspected murder: his body was found with a live snake, and the post-mortem documented injuries to his neck and nose. The prosecution later called 12 witnesses, placing the physical and medical evidence before the trial court.

The case was tried under India’s Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1860, which defines murder and provides for its punishment; the Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, governs the admission and assessment of evidence in criminal trials. In *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* on May 9, 1980, the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment but limited it to the “rarest of rare” cases.

Original sources

5 articles from 5 outlets

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.